Why Buy a Leica?

[Mike Kovacs]

Tom probably is adorable - though I cannot count him among the *many* people I have had the pleasure to meet after first interacting on internet photo forums.

There is another forum I have in mind that has the highest concentration of Leica wankerdom.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

In a contest of Leica vs. Bessa, it's no contest, it's Leica by a furlong. But here's the more interesting question:

Who wins Leica vs. Rolleiflex?

Doisneau says Rolleiflex. HCB says Leica. My bias is apparent. (But I like a Leica on occasion too.)

What do you think?

 

[Sirius Glass]

In a contest of Leica vs. Bessa, it's no contest, it's Leica by a furlong. But here's the more interesting question:

Who wins Leica vs. Rolleiflex?

Doisneau says Rolleiflex. HCB says Leica. My bias is apparent. (But I like a Leica on occasion too.)

What do you think?

Hasselblad => same format as a Rolleiflex

Steve

 

[Mahler_one]

It's only worth it if you enjoy using it, and see the difference(s) with images taken using your Leica with Leica lenses. If you are happy with what you are using, then why change? Indeed, a Honda and a Mercedes will both get you to the same place, albeit in a different "style". Same with Leica and Bessa. Having said so, nothing feels the same in one's hand as a Leica RF camera. If you can't feel the difference, or if the difference isn't important, then pass and use what you have and can afford.

Best of luck.

Edwin

 

[Ed Sukach]

Hey, guys... I'll cast a vote for Hasselblad, seeing that no one else has (I know, I know ... "way back om Message whatever ....").

The idea of "Mystique" is fascinating ... In thinking about it, I remember being riveted in my tracks on a street near the Public Library in Lynn, Massachusetts - staring at a parked vehicle.

That was a black SS 100 Jaguar. It has my vote for the most beautiful automobile ever produced ... and something even more - far MORE...

Ten to fifteen minutes of staring with my lower jaw at about knee level - that had to be about 1953 - 1955, and I've never forgotten the experience.
Doesn't that fill the strictest criteria for "Art"?

 

[eddym]

Ten to fifteen minutes of staring with my lower jaw at about knee level - that had to be about 1953 - 1955, and I've never forgotten the experience.
Doesn't that fill the strictest criteria for "Art"?

Ed, I would say it qualifies as an "epiphany"!!!

 

[Roger Hicks]

Who wins Leica vs. Rolleiflex?

Or indeed tomatoes versus bananas. The two are so different that to me, it's a meaningless question.

 

[bjorke]

Or indeed tomatoes versus bananas. The two are so different that to me, it's a meaningless question.

Bananas and Rollei. Stop being so wishy-washy

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Who wins Leica vs. Rolleiflex?

A long time ago, Eva Braun wrote an article about this, but, we better forget what she thought, don 't we?

Never the less, both camera's are splendid examples of high standard handcraft and were setting the tone for further evolutions and new models. I think that one of the real values of those objects is that they are milestones in the development of camera construction.
What the engineers of Leica, Rollei and others gave to our trade might be invaluable and it deserves some respect.

Have a nice time using them,

Philippe

 

[Confusion Circle]

In a contest of Leica vs. Bessa, it's no contest, it's Leica by a furlong. But here's the more interesting question:

Who wins Leica vs. Rolleiflex?

Doisneau says Rolleiflex. HCB says Leica. My bias is apparent. (But I like a Leica on occasion too.)

What do you think?

I have an M6 ti and a Rolleiflex 3.5E. Both are a joy to use, but I find I use the Leica more often. I just haven't got many good shots with the Rollei...maybe I just need to use it more often.

 

[Uncle Bill]

With Leica, logic goes out the window. I am a second generation owner of Leica M3 DS (it belonged to my Dad) and considering I work in Public Relations, I am at a loss for words. Live with a Leica M body for a bit and you will understand why. You don't own but act as a custodian.

Bill

 

[Ed Sukach]

I really, really DO NOT mean to wander off-topic ... but the image of that automobile was revitalized during this discussion. This is a image, not of a SS 100 Jaguar, but a "Suffolk SS 100". If one delves deeper into the building of the Suffolk, It appears to be an accurate (to the extreme) copy of the Jaguar.

It is, also, not black... but the essence of that Jaguar is still there.

Possibly I can "pry" this somewhere closer to being "on-topic" ... "Persistance of Vision" - with apologies to Dali: It is said the Ansel Adams was never really satisfied with "Moonrise Over Hernandez", He would occasionally retrieve that negative and re-print it, with additional "enlarger manipulation." I think I have a minimal understanding of that "persistance". The image NEVER leaves ones' thoughts - it only fades a bit - waiting for something of a trigger, for resurrection.

 

[Lee Shively]

It's really a silly argument, isn't it? Of those who are willing to pay the price of admission there will always be someone who doesn't enjoy the show and of those who decide not to go to the theatre there will always be those who claim the performances weren't worth the price.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's really a silly argument, isn't it? Of those who are willing to pay the price of admission there will always be someone who doesn't enjoy the show and of those who decide not to go to the theatre there will always be those who claim the performances weren't worth the price.

Dear Lee,

A perfect analysis.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Alexz]

Xmm, I never buy the argument kind of "I'd rather own 10 XXX cameras (Bessa for instance) for the price of one YYY (the brand is obvious)". The rations choice I believe in is preferring quality over quantity, rather spending 10X amount for a camera I intend to trust for years, then X amount for a camera that is supposed to be needed to get replaced sooner then later...
Moreover, the important asset for me is the availability of just a routine CLA to get the camera ticking reliably for another decade, something that only applies to a selected brands...

Just a few weeks ago I managed to acquire a beater M3 body, looking like went through some hard life since its birth in 1959. Totally non-operational, mechanics stuck, bad curtains, misaligned RF, external shape in pitiful condition (chipped off vulcanit in many placed, dinged top plate in many places, wore out to teh brass strap eyelets)...
Picked one for cheap, sent over to Youxin for a throrough CLA/repair - got back a beauty of M3, silky smooth mechanics (noticeably smoother then my trouble free M6 and the shutter is softer as well), new vulcanit-liek cover, etc..Now it is proudly show a dinged top hinting for the kind of hard life it came through and revived to a new life...that was after probaly 20-25 years of dead oblivition in the cupboard...
All it needed is a good CLA, new curtains, lens mount, few small screws to get replaced, new cover...that's all. Ats just a mere of 350$.
That is what I consider safe investment anda pure joy of photography experience and that is I'm ready to pay for...
Not many even classic cameras can be such dependable...

 

[jolefler]

After 38 years of Nikon...

ownership of most of their equipment aimed at professionals, I have to say I've been very impressed with their optics, durability and longevity. The Nikon equipment can deliver so much more than I'm capable of imagining or imaging. Their mechanical performance is smooth and solid.

That being said, I recently purchased a seventy year old Leica LTM body and lens which was obviously "ridden hard and put up wet" for the beginning of it's life, then discarded and forgotten for many years. It was not functional upon receipt. A 5 day respite for a CLA and recovering has returned just a jewel of a machine. There were NO parts replaced during the cleaning and lube. It's shutter sound just is mechanical music. It fits in my hand like nothing I've owned before...there was no "getting used to it". I didn't enjoy the handful of other rangefinder cameras I've tried in the past, and wondered why I'd purchased this camera during the wait for delivery and adjustment. Absolutely no regrets now and am SO excited about seeing the four rolls of negs out of the Elmar....gotta get to that printing ...they look great even compared to what my modern (1970ish) Nikkors produce.

Certainly glad I took the chance and "suffered" the expense of the purchase. I have absolutely no regrets. I actually get excited about souping a fresh roll again....hasn't happened like that for a while! My Leica is photo-Viagra!

Jo

 

[dpurdy]

I enjoyed this thread. Camera love is not based in practical logic. I can't explain why I am so attached to my Rolleis or why I would do something so stupid as buy a new one but I don't regret it, I am very happy about it.

Leica doesn't do it for me because I hate the little boxes in the range finder that force compositions to be thought out rather than felt. And no matter what you do it is still a miniature peice of film. I bought an M3 at a garage sale for $450 with a dual range 50. I was happy to sell it for a profit and get a Pentax 67. If I shoot a wedding, which I do on occassion, I totally trust my Nikon F100 with TTL flash metering, program auto and all. I would not do nearly as good a job trying to use a Leica. But that is just me of course. I don't like to think of technical stuff when I am stressed.

 

[Andy K]

If I wanted to spend the money I could afford to buy an M6TTL or M7 plus a couple of lenses today. I don't because I don't like the film loading method on Leicas. It looks too easy to drop stuff and lose bits in the dark. In 2007 there is no reason to hang on to such an awkward way of loading the camera.
That is also the reason I prefer my Bessa over my Zorki, just like the Leica you have to dismantle the Zorki to load film (but at least the Zorki can claim it was built 30 odd years ago, there is no excuse for modern Leicas). Ridiculous.

 

[gr82bart]

It's really a silly argument, isn't it?

Ah, but the silliness is what makes these forums so interesting.

Regards, Art.

 

[eddym]

If I wanted to spend the money I could afford to buy an M6TTL or M7 plus a couple of lenses today. I don't because I don't like the film loading method on Leicas. It looks too easy to drop stuff and lose bits in the dark. In 2007 there is no reason to hang on to such an awkward way of loading the camera.

Most definitely untrue. I shoot my Leicas mostly in dark theaters, and they are easier and faster to unload and reload in the dark than any other camera I've used. Here's my drill when I reach the end of a roll:
Rewind film
open latch on bottom plate, which then falls open and dangles from my right hand by the wrist strap
rewound film roll falls out into my left palm
drop roll into bag, grab new roll, insert it partway into camera body
pull leader across, position it between "fingers" in body
finish inserting roll fully, replace bottom plate, close latch
fire off two shots, feeling to be sure the rewind lever turns
raise camera to eye and resume shooting.
Total elapsed time: maybe 15 seconds
Practice makes perfect. I shoot 10-20 rolls during a dance performance.

 

[Ian Grant]

Have to agree Eddy, I've never had a speed issue loading my Leica even in very low light at Rock concerts.

I can't understand why people that don't own a Leica constantly berate those that do, or try to find fault with the cameras & lenses.

Ian

 

[fschifano]

The Leica rangefinder is the extremely rare confluence of the mechanical, optical, ergonometric and aesthetic. The Leica rangefinder is the only camera with a soul. If you don't understand that, then don't buy one.

Take care,
Tom

P.S. Unlike the Bessa, they are also made by little elves in the Black Forest.

A machine with a soul. That's a good one.

 

[Andy K]

Most definitely untrue. I shoot my Leicas mostly in dark theaters, and they are easier and faster to unload and reload in the dark than any other camera I've used. Here's my drill when I reach the end of a roll:
Rewind film
open latch on bottom plate, which then falls open and dangles from my right hand by the wrist strap
rewound film roll falls out into my left palm
drop roll into bag, grab new roll, insert it partway into camera body
pull leader across, position it between "fingers" in body
finish inserting roll fully, replace bottom plate, close latch
fire off two shots, feeling to be sure the rewind lever turns
raise camera to eye and resume shooting.
Total elapsed time: maybe 15 seconds
Practice makes perfect. I shoot 10-20 rolls during a dance performance.

Bessa: Rewind exposed film, open back, remove film, insert new roll, wind once, close back.

No bits and pieces to be dropped on a dark floor.
Having to dismantle your camera to change rolls, in 2007, is ludicrous.

 

[Lee Shively]

"No bits and pieces to be dropped on a dark floor."

Except the roll of film, of course.

 

[Andy K]

"No bits and pieces to be dropped on a dark floor."

Except the roll of film, of course.

A roll of film yes, but not the bottom of the camera or a spool.